The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

[Dustin Kesselberg]

muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!

1) to die, kill, have one executed
a) (Qal)
1) to die
2) to die (as penalty), be put to death
3) to die, perish (of a nation)
4) to die prematurely (by neglect of wise moral conduct)
b) (Polel) to kill, put to death, dispatch
c) (Hiphil) to kill, put to death
d) (Hophal)
1) to be killed, be put to death
a) to die prematurely

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?strongs=04191

 

[a_unique_person]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

It's not inerrant, then.

 

[Zep]

Of course! If you read Freak's "specially annotated" version of the bible, the one where all the excuses for the lame translations (not to mention the lame translations themselves) are provided in the margins.

And if that one has innerancies? Well gawsh! Switch to any other version and dodge the question.

Alternatively, you could just make up the footnotes to be whatever you like as you go along. No-one needs to know it's a load of crap you are spouting.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

The only 100% sure thing I can say about the bible is that it exists. We might as well analyze inconsistencies in Babylon 5. It would, of course, only entertain the fan boys of that show, but it would probably be as interesting nonetheless!

We could also try a little game of character swapping; changing one fictional character with another one. The story would remain the same – with as little application to realty as it has now – but we could argue about who gets to play who.

 

[Curnir]

This is a troll.

And it reeks of AmyWilsonites.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

This is a troll.

And it reeks of AmyWilsonites.

I guess you’re right (I assume the “troll” is in reference to my post), so I apologize for my little sidestep. Howling at the moon is sometimes just too irresistible! Since the topic is about inconsistencies in the bible, it’s probably best to keep the discussion within that context.

 

[logical muse]

In Genesis Chapter 1, God makes:

• the Earth on the first day
• Heaven on the second day
• Water, grass, herbs, trees, etc on the third day
• The Sun and the Moon on the fourth day
• Living things on days five and six
• Man and Woman, both, on the sixth day, after making the creatures

Genesis Chapter 1

In Genesis Chapter 2, God rests on the seventh day, and then, something strange happens. He makes the earth and heavens, and man, woman, creatures, plants etc all in one day!

In fact, he makes Adam, and then he makes the creatures. This directly contradicts the account in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis Chapter 2

 

[cyborg]

jesus_freak if you choose the KJV as your example of perfection then that is your problem not ours.

Translation errors, copying errors etc... that make their way into the KJV is irrelevant. You chose it as your Bible. Should have made a better choice.

 

[volatile]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

Hold on! Hold on! You realise "inerrant" means "without error", don't you? If your Bible needs footnotes not written by the original author to explain inaccuracies, inconsistencies and errors, it isn't 100% true, mate.

How do you know the copyist didn't make the error in transcribing 1Kings and the version in Chronicles is the correct one?

You've been hoodwinked.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

On what day did Jesus die in relationship to the Passover?

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Rather than just quoting a verse or two...

Evidence the Earth was covered in a global flood? (And probably several hundred sub questions)

Evidence all language flowed from one source?

Evidence that the Jews had an egyptian prince? Were slaves in Egypt? The early Jews really obsessed over Egypt.

The thing I love is Christians who say "Well these are just stories to teach us lessons". To that I say, Jesus believed them. If he believed them, then was anything Jesus said or did true if his teachings were based on myths?

 

[SimonD]

Hold on! Hold on! You realise "inerrant" means "without error", don't you? If your Bible needs footnotes not written by the original author to explain inaccuracies, inconsistencies and errors, it isn't 100% true, mate.

How do you know the copyist didn't make the error in transcribing 1Kings and the version in Chronicles is the correct one?

You've been hoodwinked.

You bet me to it Matt

JF - even your own bible admits to inconsistencies. What more do you want?

Taken from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#cruel
Judas died how?

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

 

[H3LL]

This is a thread that I was asked to start by others in another forum that wanted to continually bring up the Bible and contradictions in an evolution discussion...so lets have at it

As mentioned...Which one?

You can find the "one-and-only" "inerrant" bible somewhere in this list:

English Bible Versions


or a quick guide to save the effort of clicking:

Historic - Major Catholic, Anglican/Protestant Versions ( -1800) ​

· Latin Vulgate (St. Jerome) c.400: the Bible of the Western Church through the middle ages; still the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. ​

· Wycliffe (& Purvey) c.1385: first translation of whole (or most of) Bible from Vulgate into vernacular, medieval English -- [n.b. complete Wycliffe Bible not published until 1850]. ​

· Martin Luther c.1522: translation of the Greek N.T. and Hebrew O.T. into vernacular German; still the standard Bible of German Protestants [Lutheran]. ​

· Tyndale c.1525: translation of Greek N.T. [consulting Vulgate and Luther's German translation] and parts of Hebrew O.T. -- fixed the English translation style. ​

· Coverdale c.1535: little change from Tyndale's, but with new translations for previously undone portions of O.T. from Vulgate and Luther's [not orig. Hebrew]; Coverdale's PSALMS still used by Anglicans and Episcopalians in Book of Common Prayer. ​

· Matthew c.1537: Essentially Tyndale's but a publication authorized by the king (Henry VIII); the first authorized or licensed English Bible - [though license was extended to Coverdale's later editions]. ​

· Great Bible (Cranmer) c.1540: revision of Matthew's Bible produced in a large size; undertaken at Cromwell's suggestion and claimed the "Bible appointed to the use of the churches". ​

· Geneva c.1560: revision/collation of Tyndale's and the Great Bible; first English translation to use the division into verses; considered most scholarly of early English versions; commonly used for many years - especially among Puritans - and commonly brought to America. ​

· Bishops' c.1568: a rebuttal by the bishops to the Geneva Bible (which they didn't like); borrowed heavily from Great Bible and, actually, also from Geneva Bible - including use of verses; uneven quality but formed basis for KJV. ​

· Rheims/Douay c.1582/1610: the official [English] Roman Catholic Bible; translation from Vulgate [n.b. Bishop Challoner revised in mid 1700's, sometimes called "Challoner-Rheims Version"]. ​

· King James (or Authorized ) Version (KJV or AV) 1611: the standard authorized Bible of most Protestant churches for 2+ centuries; used the original Hebrew and Greek to inform comparison/revision of earlier English versions - [leaned heavily on Bishop's Bible; much of the language actually goes back to Tyndale's]. ​

Modern - Major English Language Versions (1800-1990) ​

· Revised Version or English Revised Version (RV or ERV) N.T. 1881, O.T. 1884: first major revision of KJV; done by lengthy committee process including Anglican and most Protestant faiths but NOT Roman Catholics. ​

· American Revised Version or American Standard Version (ARV or ASV) N.T. 1900, O.T. 1901: a re-edited version of the RV, basically the same. ​

· Moulton (Modern Readers') Bible1907: a rearrangement of texts rather than a significantly new version, but an early attempt to "update" the Bible. ​

· Moffat Bible N.T. 1913, O.T. 1924: a new translation from early Greek and Latin texts - considered flawed because of the choice of source texts and the occasional rearrangement of verses but still a major work and fairly popular in it's time. ​

· Smith-Goodspeed or "Chicago " Bible c.1930's: [The Bible: An American Translation (AT)] first significant attempt to make truly modern language version. ​

· Knox Bible N.T. 1945, O.T. 1948: a new translation of the Vulgate bible; the New Testament was officially approved by the Roman Catholic church, though not supplanting the Rheims N.T. (first translation done by a single individual). ​

· Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1946-1957: an attempt to improve on the language of the RV/ASV; more widely accepted, but not supplanting KJV. ​

· Modern Language Bible (New Berkeley) (MLB) 1959, rev. 1969: another attempt at a modernization of the language leaning especially toward an American audience and working from the Greek and Hebrew texts. ​

· Jerusalem Bible (JB) 1966: Catholic translation based on ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts, but closely following the French "Bible de Jerusalem" [n.b. begun well after the NAB NT (1941) was done, but finished before the NAB OT (1970)]. ​

· New American Standard Bible (NASB) N.T. 1963, O.T. 1970: conservative, fairly literal translation from mainly Greek texts; attempt to repeat the RV process with more contemporary language; not very well-received. ​

· New English Bible (NEB) 1970: first completely new [Protestant] translation from original Bible languages into English since Tyndale. ​

· New American Bible (NAB) O.T. 1969, complete 1970 [added "Confraternity Version" N.T. of Douay]: The first significant Catholic translation since Douay-Rheims; working from original Greek texts mainly, rather than Vulgate (Latin); O.T. also made use of Dead Sea Scrolls; original N.T. rushed and mostly from Vulgate and later (1987) greatly revised/retranslated. ​

· Living Bible 1971: most popular "paraphrase translation". ​

· New International Version (NIV) 1973: a conservative, evangelically oriented translation from Greek and Hebrew texts. ​

· Good News Bible [Today's English Version] (TEV) 1966: "common language" translation from modern Greek/Hebrew texts; emphasis on effective and accurate communication to the common reader. ​

· New King James Version (NKJV) N.T. 1979, O.T. 1982: a revision of KJV to improve readability of text . ​

· New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) 1985: a revision following on the changes made in the French revision of the Bible de Jerusalem (1973) reflecting some new scholarship in research of the original texts and translations. ​

· New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) 1989: the result of continuing revisions from the committee(s) who made RSV . ​

· Revised English Bible (REB) 1989: a revision of the New English Bible (1970), updating according to new scholarship in translation.​

Or how about a list of the "inerrant" changes in the seven most popular:

Bible Version Comparison

Maybe you could decide which one could be "read literally" from a historical context?

Versions of the Bible

Puzzled?...

Help is at hand.

Choose the one to take literally with this helpful guide.

Choosing a Bible Translation

My personal favourite....

The Brick Testament

Definitely the best as the most repugnant, immoral, violent, sadistic, misogynistic, pro-slave, petulant and vile parts are easier to stomach with little Lego men.

While you are at it, let us know which, if any of the missing books should be included to make it a little less inerrant and whether you consider The Book of Mormon to be a missing bit or not.

Inerrant?...Ha!

Have fun.

 

[Curnir]

I guess you’re right (I assume the “troll” is in reference to my post), so I apologize for my little sidestep. Howling at the moon is sometimes just too irresistible! Since the topic is about inconsistencies in the bible, it’s probably best to keep the discussion within that context.

Nope mate it was not in any way, shape or form a reference to your post.

It was merely a howl of dismay from my side.

 

[Lothian]

I spotted an error last time I read it. It kept talking about some ‘god’ person as if they were real

 

[hgc]

My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.

The whole damn thing could be copy errors!

 

[Skeptic]

muwth a primitive root: to die (literally or figuratively);

Nice try though!

As a native speaker of Hebrew, I can assure you that "muwth" is never used to mean "spiritual death" in the old testament. In the old testament, the word is meant literally, almost without exception; while there is rare figurative use, but never in the sense of "spiritual death".

 

[Katana]

Hey, H3LL, how about the Jefferson Bible?

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

 

[Skeptic]

In Genesis Chapter 1, God makes:

• the Earth on the first day
• Heaven on the second day
• Water, grass, herbs, trees, etc on the third day
• The Sun and the Moon on the fourth day
• Living things on days five and six
• Man and Woman, both, on the sixth day, after making the creatures

Genesis Chapter 1

In Genesis Chapter 2, God rests on the seventh day, and then, something strange happens. He makes the earth and heavens, and man, woman, creatures, plants etc all in one day!

In fact, he makes Adam, and then he makes the creatures. This directly contradicts the account in Genesis Chapter 1.

Genesis Chapter 2

It's also really cool, the way the earth--and plants as well--existed before the sun.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Genesis 4:13 And Cain said to the LORD, “My punishment is greater than I can bear!
Genesis 4:14 Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face; I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me.”
Genesis 4:15 And the LORD said to him, “Therefore,[b] whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD set a mark on Cain, lest anyone finding him should kill him.
Genesis 4:16 Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD and dwelt in the land of Nod on the east of Eden.
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son—Enoch.

This is from the evolution thread where I agreed not to bring up inconsistencies in Genesis. I really didn't think we would get a bible thread going. Who did Cain believe would kill him? There appear to be only 3 people in the whole world, Adam, Eve and Cain. A similar question involves the origin of Cain's wife. Where did she come from? JF, were there other people in the world besides the clan of Adam? What is the literal biblical explanation of their origin?